It is obvious what rightist Erdoğan does in Tehran, is not it? Turkey is a non-permanent member of United Nations Security Council. The country is also a member of NATO. On top of it, Turkey is a neighbor of Iran. Under these circumstances, what else Mr. Erdoğan do but visit Tehran? You can question what leftist Lula does in Tehran; however the presence of Mr. Tayyip Erdoğan there must not be questioned. Let us see why. Please keep reading if you like to hear what happened in Tehran from me.

The border between Turkey and Iran did not change over centuries. Why? Is it because it was a border drawn upon friendship and peace? No, such a relationship never existed between any two countries. It currently does not exist, either. The Turkey-Iran border did not change for centuries because it is a border of balance. So, would Turkey want Iran to have nuclear weapons? No, it does not at all. Turkey wants no one to have nuclear weapons; but when it comes to Iran, it does not twice. Then, Iran starts to walk differently in the neighborhood where also Turkey lives. And this does not make us happy. So, does Turkey want a hot battle right next to our border? No, we do not. We suffered and in fact still suffering from the chaos in Iraq. The efforts to turn Iran from a hot battle, from this nuclear law, are not good for Turkey and the region. However, this is most probably what will happen when Iraq is not engaged for this purpose. This is an unfavorable possibility.

Then, what would we want to do under these circumstances? We naturally wish that dialog channels are kept open and parties that do not trust each other sit down and communicate. We concentrate on establishing an environment where distrusting parties begin to trust each other. If it is necessary for a third party a friend of the both parties to step in, we assume this role. This is exactly what crosses the paths of leftist Lula and rightist Erdoğan at Tehran. Turkey and Brazil try to run a type of confidence building process in Iran. But this process run is not of importance alone. Nuclear swap itself is not a solution. Nuclear swap must be used. It is the possibility that the running process opens the door for a different and a broader negotiation that excites everyone.

The subject of the negotiation should not be nuclear armaments, of course. Trying to prevent Iran to use nuclear technology for civil purposes is not meaningful. There is no point in saying people 'please do not use nuclear energy' particularly at a time where the discussions on global climate change and the contribution of fossil fuels to this. Nonetheless it is evident that Iran shall convince everyone about how it uses nuclear energy. We should not forget that this technology shall be subject to the highest number of public regulations and the closest public supervision, at national level. In (other) countries using nuclear energy, every detail from the extracting and enriching uranium to way of keeping the fuel after using it is regulated thoroughly. Because nuclear technology is highly dangerous for humankind. The energy is generated as a result of a controlled atomic bomb explosion, which is a bit bad for health. Peaceful use of nuclear energy requires caution, let alone the terror.

In this context, it is a must in this milieu of mutual distrust that Iran convinces everyone that it will use the energy for peaceful purposes and declares how it will use the energy. Transparency at every level of the nuclear value chain constitutes the core of national regulations. Thus, every individual living on this beautiful blue planet is a stakeholder in this issue. Every process can be interfered in by anyone. It is evident that preventing one more country to have nuclear weapons shall be more important and a bigger priority than the goal of cleansing the region from nuclear weapons. There is no point in saying "first cleanse the region from nuclear weapons and so Iran does not have a bomb." There is no point in saying this because of the time mismatch. They can produce the bomb while you are struggling for the major target.

So, in this context, let us take a look at this nuclear swap issue. President of Brazil Luiz Inacio da Silva and Prime Minister of Republic of Turkey, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, went to Tehran to sign a nuclear swap agreement last Monday. Thomas Friedman from New York Times was telling why he was unhappy about the meeting of the three leaders in his commentary two days ago.  The commentary was given right above the piece by Ahmet Davutoğlu and Celso Amorim in International Herald Tribune explaining the swap. Egyptian Muhammed El Baradey, Former President of International Atomic Energy Agency and the mastermind of nuclear swap idea, talked to one French news agency why the agreement was important as a 'confidence building measure'. The point made by Baradey was quite important.

Nuclear swap is the name of the agreement which proposes that Iran deposits 1200 kg of low-enriched uranium to Turkey and receive 120 kg of enriched uranium to be used as nuclear fuel within one year. This way Turkey acts as an intermediary between the West and Iran. We will take the uranium not enriched sufficiently to be used as nuclear fuel. We will act in a way as a fiduciary. In exchange, we will provide Iran with uranium enriched by the West. And we will submit the safety deposit to the West. In the meanwhile, Iran will tell the world what it will do with 120 kg of uranium that can be used as nuclear fuel. So, what will happen in the end? Transparency will be secured. The parties will come together and communicate. Everyone will participate to the establishment of mutual trust, particularly if Iranian friends of ours keep their promise. The outcomes will be favorable.

But the agreement will not put an end to Iran's nuclear program and to the concerns in the region and the world. However the outlook of the process, which is 'mystical' due to the nature of the nuclear energy, will change a bit. Iran will take another step towards the table to discuss the nuclear disarmament. Iran will come to the table with the world and the civilization.

After all, talking is always better than fighting.

This commentary was published in Referans daily on 29.05.2010